Tribunal Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia

Page 23801

 1                           Thursday, 8 September 2011 2                           [Open session]

 3                           [The accused entered court]

 4                           --- Upon commencing at 9.05 a.m.

 5             THE REGISTRAR:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Good morning to

 6     everyone in and around the courtroom.

 7             This is case IT-08-91-T, the Prosecutor versus Mico Stanisic and

 8     Stojan Zupljanin.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Madam Registrar.

10             Good morning to everyone.  May we have the appearances, please.

11             MS. KORNER:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Joanna Korner and

12     Crispian Smith for the Prosecution.

13             MR. ZECEVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Slobodan Zecevic,

14     Slobodan Cvijetic, and Ms. Deirdre Montgomery, appearing for Stanisic

15     Defence this morning.  Thank you.

16             MR. KRGOVIC:  Good morning, Your Honours.  Dragan Krgovic,

17     Aleksandar Aleksic, and Miroslav Cuskic, appearing for Zupljanin Defence.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

19             And if there is no reason to delay it, may the usher please

20     escort the witness back to the stand.

21                           [The witness takes the stand]

22             JUDGE HALL:  General Kovacevic, good morning to you.  Before I

23     invite Mr. Cvijetic to continue his cross-examination, I give you the

24     usual reminder about your solemn declaration.

25             Yes, Mr. Cvijetic.

Page 23802

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Thank you, Your Honours.

 2                           WITNESS:  VIDOSAV KOVACEVIC [Resumed]

 3                           [Witness answered through interpreter]

 4                           Cross-examination by Mr. Cvijetic: [Continued]

 5        Q.   [Interpretation] Good morning, General.

 6        A.   Good morning.

 7        Q.   We're going to continue, and I'm going to show you an exhibit

 8     that we saw yesterday but not these particular provisions.  So this is

 9     L31, exhibit from our law library.

10             THE INTERPRETER:  Interpreter's correction, L33.

11             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

12        Q.   And it's your tab 3.

13             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We have to wait for the document

14     to appear on our screens.  At least there's nothing on my screen.  Now we

15     have it.

16        Q.   Let us just look which particular piece of legislation this is.

17     This is the Law on National Defence of the Serbian Republic of

18     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  We looked at it yesterday.  That's the law dated

19     28th of February, 1992, which you can see the heading.

20             Can you see the heading?

21        A.   Yes, I can.

22        Q.   And let's move immediately to page 2 in the Serbian, and the same

23     page in the English version.

24             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] We need Article 6.

25        Q.   General, could you please just take a look at it to see what it

Page 23803

 1     contains.

 2        A.   I am familiar with this particular article, and I relied on it in

 3     my report.

 4        Q.   What I would like to emphasise is that in the process of

 5     organising and preparing for the defence, among other powers that the

 6     president of the republic has, can order the use of the police unit

 7     during wartime and in peacetime and also in some other emergency

 8     situations.

 9             Now, General, this is consistent with your position and also the

10     position that stems from the principle of singleness of authority; is

11     that correct?

12        A.   Yes.  And we have here the president discharging the duties of

13     the Commander-in-Chief.

14        Q.   Now, while we are still on this article, let us just elaborate a

15     little.

16             In other words, nobody else in the military hierarchy except the

17     president of the republic cannot order this particular use; is that

18     correct?

19        A.   Yes.

20        Q.   This cannot be the prerogative of the minister of the interior

21     even, to order the police to take part in armed activities?

22        A.   Unless the president of the republic delegates some of his powers

23     on him, then that is the case.

24        Q.   Yesterday we said that it was possible for the president to

25     delegate --

Page 23804

 1             THE INTERPRETER:  Could the counsel please slow down and could

 2     the speakers please pause between questions and answers.  Thank you.

 3             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I'm going to repeat my question

 4     because it's not been recorded due to the fastness of my speech.

 5        Q.   So yesterday we discussed and talked about the fact that the

 6     president of the republic may delegate this particular power to the

 7     commander of the Main Staff, the commander of the Main Staff can delegate

 8     it to the corps commander, and the corps commander can delegate it to the

 9     brigade commander.

10             Now, you explained to me that these powers can be transferred up

11     to that level.  These powers relating to the use of police units and the

12     process of resubordination; is that correct?

13        A.   Yes, it is.

14        Q.   If the minister of the interior decides independently, without

15     relying on any order or a request coming from the military structures and

16     military command, to use the police, that would constitute the

17     overstepping of his authorities, and he would encroach on the

18     competencies of military organs and commanding officers; is that correct?

19             MS. KORNER:  I'm sorry.  Before the general answers, it's unclear

20     to me what the question is.  If the minister of the interior decides

21     independently without relying on any order or request coming from the

22     military structures, military -- to use the police.

23             To use the police to do what?

24             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation]

25        Q.   I said but obviously it wasn't interpreted to use it in armed

Page 23805

 1     activities.

 2             Is now question now complete?  General, can you give me an

 3     answer?

 4             In such case, he would be overstepping his authorities and he

 5     would encroach on the authorities that he is not entitled to, those of

 6     the president and others from the military hierarchy?

 7        A.   I have been speaking these last few days about combat activities

 8     where only singleness of command and resubordination can exist.  And

 9     therefore I agree with you.  And I would like to underline that that

10     applies only to combat activities as Ms. Korner rightly pointed out.

11        Q.   The minister of the interior, within the ministry, may order this

12     kind of use but exclusively by doing so and executing an order of the

13     superior command.  He can never do it independently; is that correct?

14        A.   Yes.

15        Q.   Very well.  Let's move now to page --

16             JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... Mr. Cvijetic,

17     before you move on.

18             General, the -- I understand perfectly the answers that you have

19     given to the series of questions that Mr. Cvijetic put, but is there such

20     a thing, in practice, as an implied delegation or the -- having regard to

21     the theoretical and formal structures, particularly based in the laws

22     that you have prescribed, did it always have to be formal and specific?

23             Do you understand my question?

24             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, I'm afraid I haven't

25     quite understood your question.  Are you talking about the use of police

Page 23806

 1     or about the powers that the minister has?

 2             Can you please be more specific.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  Well, I'm thinking of the -- the delegation of

 4     authority to the minister, and I'm concentrating on the answers that you

 5     gave to Mr. Cvijetic's last set of questions.  The -- could there be or

 6     was there ever a situation in practice where, although there was no

 7     specific directive or permission given to the minister to have the police

 8     engage in combat activities, within the practice of what was happening at

 9     the time, could the minister have -- could it be implied that the

10     minister had any such authority, although no paper trail, as it were, of

11     any such delegation could ever be found.

12             Is that clearer?

13             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Now I understand your question,

14     Mr. President.

15             It is possible these things happened in practice.  But, in my

16     view, it is much less relevant how a certain police unit becomes

17     integrated into army structure.  The military theory and the rules and

18     regulations say that once it becomes part of the military structure,

19     which means as part of combat activities, there can only be one

20     individual in command.  The way in which it was incorporated, attached,

21     or whatever, is not so important.  The essence of the theory of

22     resubordination says that once it is there, it is under single command

23     and this commander shall be responsible for its use and its possible

24     misuse.

25             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

Page 23807

 1             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] I called up page 6 in Serbian and

 2     page 8 in English of this same document.  We need Article 39 to be

 3     enlarged, please.

 4        Q.   General, you can follow this document on your screen as well,

 5     although you have a hard copy, I understand.

 6             General, we already discussed yesterday the use of

 7     Territorial Defence units in discharging the public security duties.  Do

 8     you remember that?

 9        A.   Yes.

10        Q.   What I would like to emphasise here is that this form of

11     engagement is also decided by the military command, the military

12     hierarchy, and the president; is that correct?

13        A.   Yes, it is.

14        Q.   Therefore, if we construe the previous provision and this

15     provision together, that is an obvious example of a singleness of

16     authority.  We have one commander who is commanding both the police and

17     the Territorial Defence.  Is that the pyramid of the singleness of

18     authority that you are talking about?

19        A.   Yes, it is.

20        Q.   Very well.  Thank you.

21             General, speaking about this provision, and in order not to

22     revisit it, let's go back to page 2 in the Serbian and page 3 in English.

23             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Can you please zoom in on

24     Article 11.

25        Q.   Read it through, please, and then I'll put a question to you.

Page 23808

 1             Have you read it?

 2        A.   Yes, I have.

 3        Q.   I'm going to ask you to go back to the Law on

 4     All People's Defence of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and

 5     the same law with the same title of the Socialist Republic of

 6     Bosnia-Herzegovina.  I suppose that you are familiar with the provisions

 7     contained therein because we are talking here about the concept of

 8     All People's Defence.

 9             So you know that within that system all participants within the

10     country were obliged to prepare for the situation of an imminent threat

11     of war or war, and, to that end, to adapt their organisation, draw up

12     wartime plans, establish sort of war staffs of their own that would

13     direct these organs under such circumstances.

14             Are aware with these provisions from these earlier laws?

15        A.   Yes, I am.  And that was implemented in practice.  There were

16     even some military exercises and police exercises carried out.  Each

17     local commune, municipality, district, and republic were obliged to

18     adhere to these provisions of the law.

19        Q.   This obligation was equally valid for the state organs, including

20     the ministries; is that correct?

21        A.   Yes, it is.

22        Q.   The Ministry of the Interior was also obliged to have its own

23     plan of work in the event of an immediate threat of war, or a war, to

24     have proper organisation structure in place, to have its own staff that

25     would be directing this organ, and so on and so forth.

Page 23809

 1             That's what the law says; is that correct?

 2        A.   Yes.

 3        Q.   In your report, in paragraph 56, quote the Law on Defence of

 4     Republika Srpska, and you are actually listing here the specific

 5     obligations of the Ministry of Interior within the context of the

 6     preparations for defence.

 7             Can you see your paragraph 56?

 8        A.   Yes, I can.

 9        Q.   So you will agree with me that from the time when the federal law

10     was in force until the last one that you referred to, this obligation

11     remained continuous and identical; is that correct?

12        A.   Yes.

13        Q.   Now I'm going to show you a document.  It's in your tab, I think,

14     14.  And it's Exhibit 1D46.

15             You can look the whole -- at the whole document in tab 14, and,

16     after that, we're going to comment on it.  Yes, it's tab 4 -- 14 in our

17     binder.

18        A.   I've read it.

19        Q.   General, this order by the minister of the interior, you will

20     agree with me, that it is an example of the application of the obligation

21     that was defined for the minister in the laws that we just looked at.

22        A.   Yes.

23        Q.   In other words, he defines the ways in which the

24     Ministry of Interior is supposed to function in the case of the imminent

25     threat of war or war.

Page 23810

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   Have you noticed that the ministry is supposed to split in two

 3     parts?  One part, which will continue performing their regular duties and

 4     tasks related to public order; and another part, which may be used in

 5     combat activities if competent military command submits such a request.

 6             Have you noticed this split?

 7        A.   Yes, I have.

 8        Q.   The minister here says that usual peacetime laws and regulations

 9     should be applied to the first part, the laws and regulations regulating

10     the normal work of the ministry.

11        A.   Yes.

12        Q.   However, the second part of the ministry, let's call it the

13     uniformed part, people carrying arms, in paragraphs 7 and 8 of this

14     order, the minister says:  Military regulations shall be applied to this

15     part.

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   You, as an expert, noticed this split of the ministry in some

18     other segments of work as well in these particular circumstances.  For

19     example, when you discussed the co-operation between the military organs

20     and the police organs.  This co-operation could only exist in relation to

21     the first part of the ministry, the part that continued performing their

22     regular tasks.

23        A.   Yes.

24        Q.   However, there can be no co-operation with the second part of the

25     ministry, the part that is being used in combat activities.  Because this

Page 23811

 1     part is now an integral part of the military structure and subordination,

 2     so there can be no talk of co-ordination or co-operation.  There are only

 3     orders that are carried out.

 4             Am I correct in saying this?

 5        A.   Yes, you're correct.  If you take a look at paragraph 7 of this

 6     order by the minister, you will see in the third subparagraph:

 7             [As read] "While participating in combat operations, the units of

 8     the ministry shall be subordinated to the command of the armed

 9     forces ..."

10        Q.   Now that you mention this, let me ask you the following:  Is this

11     the essence of the relationship between the military and the police in

12     time of war or imminent threat of war?

13        A.   Mr. Cvijetic, I'm afraid your question is not precise enough.  I

14     cannot understand it.

15             Relationship is a very, very wide term.  If we talk about

16     relationship between the military and the police, that's imprecise.  I

17     keep emphasizing here that the relation is very clear, and then there is

18     a command relationship in existence only when the police is part of the

19     command structure of the army.

20        Q.   Your answer was not interpreted in a very precise way.  Could you

21     please repeat it.

22        A.   I said that I did not fully understand your question.  And then I

23     repeated what I had already stated.  The relations between the military

24     and the police units, when the latter are engaged in combat activities,

25     are clearly defined, and then we can only speak of a command

Page 23812

 1     relationship.  The police units are, in such a case, subordinated to a

 2     military commander.

 3        Q.   When I put the question to you, I had in mind your previous

 4     answer, when you said that it is far more important what kind of

 5     relations we have once the police arrives -- arrives into the military

 6     structure and is resubordinated to the military commander.  That is why I

 7     wanted to emphasise what I perceived as the essence of the -- their

 8     relationship.

 9        A.   You're right.  Now I understand what you wanted to ask me in your

10     previous question.

11        Q.   Very well.  So the essence of this relation was condensed by you,

12     if I can put it that way, in a paragraph of your report.  It's

13     paragraph 217.  And I would like you to confirm whether this

14     paragraph talks about the topic that you've just discussed here.

15        A.   This is precisely what I wrote in paragraph 217.  The subject

16     matter of our recent discussion, and, indeed, the discussion in the past

17     few days.

18        Q.   Thank you.

19             General, let me close on this topic.  You have been here for

20     quite a number of days here, answering our questions, and I think that

21     now we have the clear picture about the hierarchy, the pyramid and the

22     principle of the singleness of command --

23             MS. KORNER:  [Overlapping speakers] ... Sorry, can we not have a

24     speech, please.

25             MR. CVIJETIC:  Okay.  Okay.  Okay.

Page 23813

 1        Q.   [Interpretation] General, the pyramid of the command over the

 2     armed forces has only one summit.

 3        A.   Yes.

 4        Q.   Any occurrence of parallel command encroaches on the principle of

 5     the singleness of command and subordination, as well as impinging on the

 6     system of defence; is that right?

 7        A.   Correct.

 8        Q.   Any parallel command will not be tolerated by the military

 9     hierarchy and structure.  Is that so?

10        A.   That is correct.

11        Q.   So, if, in a zone of responsibility of a corps commander, a

12     well-armed group of, say, volunteers appears, numbering 1- to 200 men,

13     and they take part in combat activities; however, with their own command,

14     with their own tactics and with their own strategy, without respecting

15     the military hierarchy, the military tactics, and the military strategy,

16     what are the powers at the disposal of the corps commander in this

17     particular situation?

18        A.   The corps commander has powers and competencies enabling him to

19     summon the officer commanding over this particular group and to order him

20     that they should all voluntarily be transferred into the hierarchy and

21     under the command of the corps.  If they refuse to do this, he has the

22     power and, indeed, the duty to disarm them, to break them apart, and,

23     ultimately, destroy in case that they resist his orders.

24             JUDGE HARHOFF:  General, what do you mean by "destroy them"?

25     Would that be to arrest them and incarcerate them?  Or do you mean

Page 23814

 1     something else?

 2             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Your Honour, if this group puts up

 3     an armed resistance against the regular units of the corps, then the

 4     regular units have the powers to engage them in combat.

 5             I agree with you that the corps commander - and I said that his

 6     first option would be the offer of voluntary surrender - and then, of

 7     course, he also has the option of arresting them and prosecuting them.

 8             MR. CVIJETIC:

 9        Q.   [Interpretation] General, there is one thing I would like to know

10     in the end.  What is the scope of the competency of military commanders

11     in case of an imminent threat of war?  So my question is very direct and

12     very specific:  Does this hold true in the whole territory where this

13     particular emergency had been proclaimed?  I'm talking here about the

14     powers of the commanders.

15        A.   The powers of the commanders pertain to all military officers

16     throughout the territory where the imminent threat of war had been

17     proclaimed.

18        Q.   General, thank you.  I have no more questions for you.

19             MR. CVIJETIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, my cross-examination

20     is finished.

21             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Cvijetic.

22             Yes, Ms. Korner.

23                           Cross-examination by Ms. Korner:

24        Q.   General Kovacevic, just before I turn to your report and other

25     matters, on that last answer, I just want to make sure we all understand.

Page 23815

 1     The powers of a commander in an area where, as you put it, a threat of

 2     war has been declared, pertained to military officers.

 3             That's correct, is it?

 4        A.   That's correct.  However, we should be more precise here,

 5     Ms. Korner, when defining what is military personnel, how we defined this

 6     term during the imminent threat of war, if you permit me.

 7        Q.   Can I say, I'm going to come onto that, because there is a very

 8     clear definition, is there not, of who or what is a member of the

 9     military, in the law.

10        A.   Ms. Korner, in case of an imminent threat of war, and you can see

11     this from the documents that I analysed, a general public mobilisation is

12     proclaimed.  The duty to report to the mobilisation is a duty on all

13     citizens, I think males between 17 and 60 and females between 17 and 55.

14     So they are all military conscripts.

15        Q.   Yes.  That's fine.  But it doesn't apply -- as I say, we're going

16     to look at the definition of who is in the military later.

17             It does not, therefore, apply to those who are in the police

18     unless they have been - and let's use the word "resubordinated" because

19     everybody has been using that - they have been resubordinated into the

20     military, attached to the military.

21        A.   Yes, the police had its reserve force, if that's what you're

22     thinking.

23        Q.   I just want to make it clear so that we don't have any more

24     discussion or argument about this.  Military personnel does not include

25     members of the MUP unless they have been resubordinated to the military.

Page 23816

 1             Is there a problem with the question, General?

 2        A.   I lost my thought, Ms. Korner.

 3             I didn't follow you carefully enough.  Could you please repeat

 4     the question.

 5        Q.   I will.  From what you have told us, the military -- I'm sorry,

 6     let me just get the exact answer.

 7             Military -- the powers of commanders, you told Mr. Cvijetic,

 8     pertain to all military officers throughout the territory where the

 9     imminent threat of war has been complained -- proclaimed.

10             I now repeat the question:  All military officers does not

11     include members of the MUP, reserve or fully authorised, unless they have

12     been resubordinated to military command.

13        A.   Precisely, Ms. Korner.  However, we saw a number of cases when an

14     entire MUP force was resubordinated to military command.

15        Q.   Yes.  General, I'm not arguing that at all.  I just wanted to

16     confirm that's what you were saying, and you've confirmed that's what you

17     were saying.

18             All right.  I now would like to ask you about your report in

19     general, and your expertise.

20             I'm just going to get my ...

21             Apart from the written report that you produced for the Popovic

22     and others case, have you ever produced a report before, or since

23     Popovic, and before this one, for the purposes of trial proceedings?

24        A.   I have not, Ms. Korner.

25        Q.   Have you ever testified before, because you weren't asked that

Page 23817

 1     earlier on, in any of the trials either in Serbia, Croatia, or in Bosnia

 2     and Herzegovina for war crimes committed during the 1992 to 1995

 3     conflict?

 4        A.   I have not, Ms. Korner.

 5        Q.   So I take it from that this is the first time that you have

 6     testified as an expert in any kind of court proceedings.

 7        A.   Precisely.

 8        Q.   Do you understand -- and I don't mean this in any rude or

 9     insulting way.  Because it's the first time, do you understand the rules

10     that govern expert testimony?

11        A.   Ms. Korner, when approached by the Defence counsel, I understood

12     my role here to appear as a military expert witness.  In this sense, I

13     prepared, wishing to assist the counsel and the Chamber.

14        Q.   Yes.  I understand how you came to testify, and I'm going to come

15     back to that one as well.  I'm asking you now whether you understand what

16     the duties of an expert witness, or, indeed, an expert in any kind of

17     proceeding, are.

18        A.   The way I understood the words of the Presiding Judge and when I

19     pronounced my solemn obligation, that my duty here was to tell the truth

20     and nothing but the truth.

21        Q.   Yes, I'm sorry.  I quite understand that, General.  But what I'm

22     asking you is you have any idea of what is required of an expert and, in

23     particular, an expert's report.  And can you tell us what you understand

24     is the duty of an expert when preparing a report for court proceedings.

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Objection.  It is an unclear

Page 23818

 1     question.  Ms. Korner should put a direct question to the expert.  What

 2     is she seeking to extract?  Otherwise the witness will not understand.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  [Previous translation continues] ... indeed I was

 4     going to suggest, Ms. Korner, that the -- the way the question, the

 5     open-ended way in which the question is phrased would be difficult even

 6     for a lawyer to answer.  And since you have the advantage of

 7     cross-examining, I would have thought it would be more helpful if you

 8     would directly suggest to him what the obligations of an expert are, and

 9     go from there.

10             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I appreciate that I have the right to

11     the ask leading questions, but I thought, in fairness to the General, I

12     ought to give him a chance before I put to him various matters to see if

13     he can tell us what he understands his duties were before he prepared the

14     report.  But I'm perfectly prepared to put the -- the various things to

15     them.

16        Q.   Do you understand that it's the duty of an expert to be

17     objective?

18        A.   The way I see my duty is that I'm here to tell the truth and that

19     I need to provide an accurate interpretation of military rules and

20     regulations that I refer to in my report.

21             I'm also here to use those rules and regulations, in order to

22     provide an accurate interpretation of the documents put before me by the

23     Court in this case.

24        Q.   Let me explain to you, then, General, what I mean by "objective."

25             Do you understand that you have to look at the material with an

Page 23819

 1     open mind before coming to a conclusion about that material?

 2        A.   Ms. Korner, first, you need to tell me what specific material you

 3     have in mind and what conclusion of mine may have been one-sided or

 4     biased.

 5        Q.   Believe you me, General, I'm going to come to all of that.  But,

 6     at the moment, I'm trying to establish, so that the Court understands and

 7     all of us understand, whether you approached the material that you are

 8     were asked to deal with by the Defence with an open mind?

 9             And let me explain what I mean by "an open mind."  That you

10     didn't just look at material for documents or statements which supported

11     what the Defence wanted you to say?

12        A.   Ms. Korner, the focus of my report was on military rules,

13     documents, and regulations.  I attempted an interpretation of those rules

14     and regulations which I also relied on in order to interpret the

15     documents provided by Defence in the course of the past few days.

16        Q.   Well, I'm sorry, General, we'll see in a moment that that's not

17     right, that your report doesn't just deal with military documents, rules,

18     and regulations.  So I will repeat for the last time the question I

19     asked.

20             Do you understand that as an expert it is your duty to look at

21     documents with a -- and rules and regulations, with an open mind?

22        A.   I agree with you.

23        Q.   Right.  Do you understand that an expert report should also

24     include matters which do not support the -- the theory or the side which

25     you are trying to advance?

Page 23820

 1        A.   Ms. Korner, I used the documents, rules and regulations that I

 2     could gain access to, and this is what I based my report on.

 3        Q.   All right.  Well, I'll come onto, then, what you were given

 4     access to in a moment.

 5             In writing a report, do you understand the importance of giving

 6     source -- sources for the -- the matters that you put into the report?

 7     Certainly matters of fact.

 8        A.   Yes, I do.

 9        Q.   And what's the reason for that?  Why is that important?

10        A.   I used some general written material that can be found in the

11     attachment to my report.

12        Q.   No.  I -- I'm coming on to -- I will come onto the specifics.

13     But I'm asking you now:  Why it is important - you say you know it's

14     important - to give sources.  Why is that important?

15        A.   I presume it is important in order to tell the truth, and I

16     undertook that obligation as an expert before this Court.

17        Q.   All right.  Well, let me put it to you as I -- do you understand

18     that it's important so that what you say, based on a source, can be

19     checked by anybody who is reading the report?

20        A.   Precisely.

21        Q.   Do you agree that an original source is better than a secondary

22     source?  And I'll explain what I mean by that.  In other words, that the

23     original document, or the original account, is better than a secondary

24     source who has put it into a book or reporting on it?

25        A.   It depends, Ms. Korner, on the context and topic.  I wouldn't

Page 23821

 1     necessarily ascribe advantage to either one or the other.  I'm not sure

 2     what you have in mind specifically.

 3        Q.   Well, wouldn't it be better to look at the original of a military

 4     order rather than somebody describing that military order in a book?

 5        A.   I agree with you.  If the original is accessible.

 6        Q.   Yes.  Obviously if it is not accessible, I accept.

 7             Now, do you understand the importance of accurate quotes?  If

 8     you're quoting from a document or from a book that it should be quoted

 9     accurately.

10        A.   I agree with you.

11        Q.   All right.  Now, can I ask you about your methodology in

12     preparing this report.

13             You set it out at page -- just a moment.  Let me just find it.

14     Yep.  Well, I don't think ... just a moment, Your Honours, I'm sorry.  I

15     was going to say that the methodology isn't ...

16             Yes, notes on methodology.  Page 5 in the English.  The report is

17     0031D2.  I have no idea, I am afraid, what it is in the B/C/S, so I'm

18     going to have to rely on the Defence.

19             MR. KRGOVIC:  Paragraph number.

20             MS. KORNER:  Same page, is it?

21             MR. KRGOVIC:  Paragraph is better to --

22             MS. KORNER:  Yes, okay.  You're quite right.  Yes, paragraph 11.

23             It's page 5 in each, I understand.

24        Q.   Now you say in paragraph 11 after you describe what your approach

25     was to analyse and synthesise documents.  "The basic method I used was

Page 23822

 1     analyse and synthesis."  Can you just explain what you mean by that?

 2        A.   It is a well-known method used in the production of many a

 3     report, even scientific papers.  One analyses the contents of certain

 4     documents, rules, and regulations.  The crux of the matter is the

 5     contents, based on which, one can make conclusions.

 6        Q.   I understand analyse.  What does analyse and synthesise mean.

 7     What do you mean by synthesise?

 8        A.   It is the result of a thinking process.  One analyses documents

 9     and draws conclusions.  By using specific parts, you make a whole.

10        Q.   So what synthesise means is your analysing the documents and

11     drawing conclusions from them?

12        A.   That is correct.

13        Q.   And if the conclusion was contrary when you'd analysed these

14     documents to the -- what you'd been asked to show, would you put that

15     into the report?

16        A.   If I came across such a instance, I would have to specify it in

17     the report.

18        Q.   All right.  Now, I'm going to move from the general to the

19     specific.

20             When were you first asked to compile a report on behalf of

21     Mr. Zupljanin?

22        A.   I believe I mentioned that yesterday.  It is a fact that I had

23     very little time to prepare this report.  I think I was approached in

24     late February or early March of this year.

25        Q.   Really?  Well, presumably you have an exact note of the date.

Page 23823

 1     Could you tell us, please, the exact note of the date.

 2        A.   I think the date is the 1st of March.

 3        Q.   Can I ask what you're referring to there, General.

 4             General, the piece of paper you've just put back into your

 5     brief-case.  You can take it out again.  Can I ask you what it is,

 6     please.

 7        A.   It's an overview of the time flow.  It was forwarded to the

 8     Bench.

 9             MR. KRGOVIC:  Your Honour, it's confidential.  It's a time sheet

10     for the Defence.

11             MS. KORNER:  That may be so, but I'm going to ask to see it,

12     please.

13             MR. KRGOVIC:  No.  Because it is correspondence between Registry

14     and with the expert.  It is not possible.

15             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, I think it's relevant.  It's not

16     privileged.  And I'm going to ask Your Honours to allow me to have a look

17     at it because the amount of time that the General spent working on this

18     report, and actually in his own interest, is relevant.

19                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

20             JUDGE HALL:  The ...

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22                           [Trial Chamber and Legal Officer confer]

23             JUDGE HALL:  This matter is a little more complex than first

24     appears.  We would return to it.

25             Could you continue --

Page 23824

 1             MS. KORNER: [Microphone not activated]

 2             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, we have no problem in

 3     showing this.  But since this touches upon a sensitive relationship

 4     between OLAD and the expert, I believe it should be done in consultation

 5     with the Registry to see whether this should be published publicly.

 6             As for the contents, we have no objection to having it shown to

 7     Ms. Korner.

 8             JUDGE HALL:  Well, the Registry, in terms of that separate

 9     question, that is something that the Registry is going to inquire into

10     and advise the Chamber accordingly.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] First, this should be checked; and

12     if it is not a problem, Mr. Kovacevic will provide it.

13             JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... Yes.

14             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] That was the gist of my objection.

15             JUDGE HALL: [Previous translation continues] ... Yes.

16             MS. KORNER:

17        Q.   General, by whom were you asked to do the report?

18        A.   By Mr. Dragan Krgovic, Defence Attorney.

19        Q.   Was that request in writing or verbally?

20        A.   It was a verbal request, as far as I recall.  I knew him from

21     earlier times.  As I have said, we worked on a previous case together.

22        Q.   Yes, I understand that; the Popovic case.

23             What were the terms of reference?  What were you actually asked

24     to do a report on?  And, again, did you get those terms of reference in

25     writing?

Page 23825

 1        A.   I'll be honest:  We discussed in his office for a few hours.

 2     That was the first time round.

 3             I hesitated to accept the task because the police is an

 4     institution I'm not familiar with, or to be more precise, I'm less privy

 5     to its working than the military institutions are.

 6             However, in conversation with Mr. Krgovic, I realized that the

 7     topic of my report was to be the use of the police in combat activities.

 8     That is why I accepted.

 9             In order for it to be explained, such use of civilian police in

10     combat, we need to view it through military terms, military documents and

11     military rules.  The terms include military command, resubordination,

12     coordinated action, and attachment.  Once I realized that, I accepted to

13     draft a report of that nature.

14        Q.   First of all, General, thank you for telling us.  As you said -

15     and it's not a criticism of you at all - you are not in any sense an

16     expert in police matters, are you?

17        A.   That is correct.  Except when the police is used in combat

18     operations.

19        Q.   All right.  I'll come back to that one.

20             You've never studied, have you, the interaction between police

21     and military from the point of view of the police?

22             MR. KRGOVIC:  What does it mean?

23             MS. KORNER:

24        Q.   You've never looked at the documents about the police use by the

25     military from the police side.  The documents that the police issue.  And

Page 23826

 1     I don't just mean for 1992 -- for 1992 to 1995.

 2        A.   In my CV, Ms. Korner, I stated that the focus of my work was

 3     education and training of members of the unit of which I was part of.  I

 4     educated and trained those members, but in order to be able to do that, I

 5     had to read a huge number of books, cover various areas of expertise, and

 6     read documents.

 7             For example, each new regulation, when it is published that

 8     pertains to the army, I have to take it to the unit and to brief my unit

 9     about this particular regulation.

10        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... Yes.

11        A.   So I had an opportunity to encounter various contents.

12        Q.   Right.  I'm sorry, General.  I think you didn't understand the

13     question.

14             Have you ever looked at documents produced by the MUP before the

15     conflict when there was a federal state, or states of Yugoslavia, or

16     during the conflict of the police, apart from what you've been shown by

17     Defence counsel?

18        A.   Well, I had an opportunity to see them earlier in practice, not

19     to a large extent though.  There was some sort of co-operation with MUP

20     units, and there were some contacts between the army and the police.

21        Q.   All right.  I don't want to spend more time than that.

22             You had a conversation of some hours with Mr. Krgovic.  Did you

23     make notes --

24             JUDGE HALL:  Ms. Korner, it's --

25             MS. KORNER:  Oh, sorry.

Page 23827

 1             JUDGE HALL:  Is it a convenient point.

 2             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  I have a question of Mr. Krgovic before we rise.  So

 4     perhaps the witness can be escorted out of the courtroom a little ahead

 5     of us.

 6                           [The witness stands down]

 7             JUDGE HALL:  And, Mr. Krgovic, this comes back to the question

 8     the Chamber has indicated that it would deal with, Ms. Korner's

 9     application and your objection.

10             Did I understand you correctly to say that you would have no

11     objection to the document in question being shown to the Prosecutor

12     without it being -- coming into evidence as a public document?

13             Is that your position?

14             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, this is the list of

15     hours that the witness has to account for to the Registry.

16             JUDGE HALL:  [Previous translation continues] ...

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] And the problem we see here --

18             JUDGE HALL:  [Previous translation continues] ... I know what it

19     is.  But my precise question is -- and I appreciate the matter of it not

20     being made an item of evidence.  My only question is whether I understood

21     you correctly when I thought you had said that you had no difficulty with

22     counsel for the opposite side seeing it and leaving it at that without --

23     the question of it being a matter of evidence not arising.

24             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, just to see it but

25     not to ask any questions about it or use this document for whatever

Page 23828

 1     purposes that might arise.

 2             MS. KORNER:  [Previous translation continues] ... of course, I

 3     don't have to see the document.  It was merely to short-circuit things.

 4     I could simply ask the General to tell us each day that he worked on this

 5     report, and that wouldn't be objectionable.  But it would waste an awful

 6     lot of time.

 7             JUDGE HALL:  [Overlapping speakers] ...  I just wanted to

 8     clarify --

 9             MS. KORNER:  [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes.

10             JUDGE HALL:  -- because you said you would return to it.

11             MS. KORNER:  So I will be asking questions on it.

12             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, you know what the

13     problem is?  In principle, this is inequality of arms of parties in the

14     proceedings.

15             If you ask somebody to prepare a report and that is what the

16     Prosecution was doing with the people who were working for them, in that

17     case, they didn't have to record the number of the hours.  However, when

18     we engage an outside expert we to have the -- know -- the number of

19     hours, and we have to ask him or her about how many hours he spent

20     because we have no other available records.  And this is this principle

21     of inequality and the inferior position of the Defence with respect to

22     the OTP.

23             MS. KORNER:  [Previous translation continues] ... to do with

24     inequality of arms.  It's to do with how much time the expert had to do

25     the report and look at the documents, which is a relevant issue and is

Page 23829

 1     something, as I say, in fairness to him.  If he had a limited amount of

 2     time, that may explain a lot of things.

 3             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Then put a simple question to him.

 4     Ask him quite simply.

 5                           [Trial Chamber confers]

 6             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, why don't you just ask:  How many

 7     hours did you work on it?

 8             MS. KORNER:  Your Honour, I can.  But I'm anxious to see exactly

 9     how many hours he worked on it.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Anyway, we'll take the break and come back in 20

11     minutes.

12                           --- Recess taken at 10.30 a.m.

13                           --- On resuming at 10.57 a.m.

14             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honours, may I just briefly

15     address the Bench with regard to the last topic that Ms. Korner and I

16     discussed.

17             During the break, I received information that the document that

18     the witness has with him is basically my document.  In other words,

19     that's a translation of the summary of his report that I was supposed to

20     submit to the Registry but somehow he has retained this copy.  In it, it

21     is roughly stated how many hours were used, which -- and that report was

22     supposed to be submitted to the Registry.

23             So basically that's my document.  Pursuant to Rule 70(A) which

24     reads that reports, memoranda and other internal documents that are

25     connected with the investigation or preparation of the case and have been

Page 23830

 1     drafted by any of the party, its associates or assistants are not subject

 2     to disclosure or notice in line with the provisions of the said Rule.

 3             So we have a crystal-clear situation here, Your Honours, that is

 4     our internal document that shouldn't be disclosed or publicised for any

 5     purposes whatsoever.

 6             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, could I just know what -- would

 7     Your Honours be kind enough to establish how Mr. Krgovic received the

 8     information over the break.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Well, I could --

10             MR. KRGOVIC:  Informed by the Registry.

11             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  The -- during the break, the Chamber requested

12     the Registry to have sight of the document that the witness had, and the

13     Registry was the means of communication with Mr. Krgovic.

14             MS. KORNER:  I see.  Well, Your Honours, I don't want to waste

15     time on pursuing the matter.  I'm not sure it is as clear-cut that this

16     is a privileged document.  But nonetheless, if it is a privileged

17     document, it's been waived by being supplied to the witness, is not, in

18     any sense, part of the team investigating.  But I don't think it is

19     necessary to waste any more time on this.  So perhaps we can carry on.

20             JUDGE HALL:  So we have the witness back on the stand and we'll

21     continue.

22                           [The witness takes the stand]

23                           [Trial Chamber and Registrar confer]

24             MS. KORNER:

25        Q.   General --

Page 23831

 1             JUDGE HALL:  The --

 2             MS. KORNER:  Oh, sorry.

 3             JUDGE HALL:  I should point that the first communication of the

 4     Court Officer would have had counsel.  Counsel hasn't seen the document;

 5     so it's been an oral communication between the Registry and counsel.

 6             MS. KORNER:

 7        Q.   General, I want to go back to look at the document you looked at

 8     for when you were first instructed.

 9             Do we understand this, that this is a document that contains your

10     hours and a summary of your potential evidence prepared by Mr. Krgovic?

11        A.   I believe so.  The document is in English.

12        Q.   All right.  General, can I ask you, then, please, can you tell

13     us, did you keep your own record of the time you spent compiling this

14     report, in order to submit it to Mr. Krgovic?

15        A.   No, I didn't keep any special record of that.

16        Q.   Well, I'm sorry, how did you -- how did you -- or well, I should

17     ask you this first.

18             Did you give Mr. Krgovic any note of the hours you spent

19     preparing this report?

20        A.   No, I didn't give him any written notes.  I just informed him

21     orally, off the top of my head.

22        Q.   Well, General, wasn't it made clear to you that the time you

23     spent and which you supplied was the basis on which the Registry would

24     pay you?

25        A.   I was aware of that fact.

Page 23832

 1        Q.   You were aware of that.  Well, didn't you think it important,

 2     therefore, to keep an accurate record of the time that you spent working

 3     on this report?

 4        A.   Well, I had this all -- all this information, Ms. Korner, in my

 5     head.

 6        Q.   Really.  All right.  Can you tell us, then, please, General,

 7     between the 1st of March -- well, firstly, when did you submit the report

 8     to Mr. Krgovic?

 9        A.   I don't remember the exact date, Ms. Korner.

10        Q.   General, did you submit the report by post or by e-mail?

11        A.   I took the report personally to Mr. Krgovic at his law office.

12        Q.   All right.  When was that?

13        A.   I don't know the exact date, but I believe that it happened about

14     a month after I had worked on drafting the report.

15        Q.   All right.  Well, let's have a look.  You can use the document

16     that you were provided with.  You told us that you were first instructed

17     on the 1st of March.  When is the last day, according to the document

18     that you have in your possession, that you worked on the report?

19        A.   Until the 31st of March.

20        Q.   The 31st of March, all right.  And that's the date you say you

21     took it to Mr. Krgovic in his office, is it?

22        A.   I don't recall that that was precisely the date, but I think it

23     was.

24        Q.   You see -- are you sure this is an accurate record, General?

25        A.   I'm sure.

Page 23833

 1                           [Prosecution counsel confer]

 2             MS. KORNER:

 3        Q.   You see, your report was filed with this Court on the 28th of

 4     March.

 5        A.   I know that it was towards the end of March.  I may have been

 6     mistaken.

 7        Q.   What does it say on the document?  You've given us the 31st of

 8     March.  You said -- I asked you what -- when is the last day, according

 9     to the document you have in your possession, you worked on the report.

10     You said the 31st of March.

11             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Well, there's a difference between

12     the last day that he worked on it, and the day he filed it.  Because

13     there were other problems in the intervening period.  So what is recorded

14     there has nothing to do with this.

15             MS. KORNER:  All right.

16             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Ms. Korner, what -- your question was what does

17     it say on the document you've given us, what document you're referring

18     to?

19             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated]

20             JUDGE DELVOIE:  That's what I heard.

21             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated] the one he had in his

22     possession, which is Mr. Krgovic's document.

23             JUDGE DELVOIE:  The one you would not pursue questioning about.

24             MS. KORNER:  Yes, because I got the distinct impression I was not

25     being encouraged to pursue questioning about, but I may --

Page 23834

 1             JUDGE DELVOIE:  That is what you are doing.  Are you pursuing on

 2     this document.

 3             MS. KORNER:  No, no, I'm trying to get -- Sorry, Your Honours.

 4     I'm trying to get the dates when he worked on the report.  And all he can

 5     tell us is that what's on that document.  I'm sorry, Your Honours, I

 6     didn't appreciate ...

 7             JUDGE DELVOIE:  Please proceed.

 8             MS. KORNER:

 9        Q.   General, are you saying that after you'd handed the report to

10     Mr. Krgovic, you did some further work?

11        A.   I remember that there were some technical problems.

12        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... what technical problems?

13        A.   Well, with regard to footnotes and other technical problems that

14     I'm not good at solving, so I consulted the people from Mr. Krgovic's

15     office, and after I had handed in the documents, we continued touching it

16     up in view of making preparations for my appearance here.

17        Q.   All right.  So do I understand that the report that was filed,

18     which we have copies of, there are other versions of it?

19        A.   No, there are no other versions.

20        Q.   Before you produced the final report that was filed, did you send

21     a draft to Mr. Krgovic or anybody else on his team?

22        A.   No, I didn't send it to anyone else.

23        Q.   Did you have any conversations, with Mr. Krgovic or anybody else

24     on his team before you produced the version that was filed, about the

25     report.

Page 23835

 1        A.   As soon as I finished my report, I talked to some professors from

 2     the Military Academy about some of the topics that I covered in my

 3     report.

 4        Q.   All right.

 5        A.   I also talked to a number of generals and military officers who

 6     had been in the VRS throughout the whole period.

 7             But that was all in order to verify my views, my conclusions, and

 8     for better preparation for this trial.  Better preparation of me

 9     personally.

10        Q.   All right.  Well, let's leave it aside, preparation for the

11     trial.

12             Did you talk to these generals before you gave the final version

13     of this report to Mr. Krgovic?

14             MR. KRGOVIC:  He already answered on that question.

15        Q.   Did you talk to those generals before you prepared the final

16     version of this report.

17        A.   No.  I first drafted the report by myself.

18        Q.   Yes, no.  You did a draft of the report - is this right? - then

19     you spoke to the generals, and then you did your final version; is that

20     right?

21             MR. KRGOVIC:  It's misleading.  It's completely misleading.

22             MS. KORNER:

23        Q.   General, just so that we all understand:  Did you speak to the

24     generals before you submitted the report to Mr. Krgovic and after you had

25     done a draft?

Page 23836

 1        A.   When I talked to those people, I only verified my views, and I

 2     made preparations for this trial.

 3        Q.   I'm sorry, General, it's not an answer to the question.  Was the

 4     talking to the other generals, when you had done a draft but before you

 5     gave Mr. Krgovic the final version, or after you had delivered the final

 6     version?

 7        A.   After having delivered the final version to Mr. Krgovic.

 8        Q.   All right.  Did you -- I'll go back to my original question.

 9             Did you speak to Mr. Krgovic or any member of the Defence team

10     before you delivered your final version about the contents of your

11     report?

12        A.   I spoke to Mr. Krgovic on a number of occasions while I was

13     working on the report.

14        Q.   Right.  Did you tell him what you were going to put into the

15     report?

16        A.   Yes.

17        Q.   Did you make any changes to what you were going to put into the

18     report, as a result of your conversations with Mr. Krgovic?

19        A.   It was more of a consultation.

20        Q.   [Previous translation continues] ... I don't quite understand

21     what that means.  What do you mean by "a consultation"?

22        A.   Ms. Korner, I wouldn't bring him a document so that he could put

23     in some corrections.

24        Q.   No.  But I want to know what you mean by "consultations."

25        A.   Sometimes I had a dilemma.  Then I would ask him, he would give

Page 23837

 1     me a reply.  I would memorize it.  I will go home.  I would sit behind my

 2     computer, and I would put it into the report that I was currently working

 3     on.

 4        Q.   Give us an example of a dilemma in which Mr. Krgovic gave you the

 5     answer.

 6        A.   I can't remember with any precision right now.  I'm merely

 7     answering your questions.  And I'm explaining the methods that I used in

 8     my work.

 9        Q.   Yes.  When I started asking you questions this morning, I asked

10     you if you understood the duties of an expert.  Did you understand that

11     you should have said in the report who had assisted you with the

12     preparation of this report?

13        A.   I was not aware of the existence of this obligation.  But I

14     emphasise once again:  That I drafted the report on my own.

15        Q.   But, General, I understand that you did the physical drafting of

16     it on your own.  But from what you just told us, it contained input from

17     Mr. Krgovic who solved your dilemma.

18        A.   Most often, or to be more precise, it was really a suggestion.

19     Or I shouldn't really say "suggestion."  In those cases when I had small

20     problems in interpretation of certain laws and regulations.

21        Q.   I'm sorry, do you mean he gave you the interpretation, General?

22        A.   He helped me.  He helped me to resolve a dilemma.  Legal dilemma.

23        Q.   But, General, did -- did you understand that, to the reader of

24     this report, this all looks like your own work, your own conclusions,

25     based on, as you put it, your own analysis and synthesis?

Page 23838

 1        A.   Yes.

 2        Q.   And, in actual fact, the reality is that it isn't, isn't it?  It

 3     contains parts that you got from Mr. Krgovic who solved your dilemmas.

 4     Is that right?

 5        A.   There is no such thing in this report.  The dilemmas were only

 6     inside my head.

 7        Q.   Well, firstly, let's go back to these dilemmas then.  How many

 8     times, if you can recall, did you consult Mr. Krgovic about a dilemma

 9     that was in your head?

10        A.   For instance, three or four times.

11        Q.   Right.  You've told us you memorialised what he said and then

12     went back and put it in your report.  Why didn't you write it down at the

13     time, rather than trying to remember what he told you?

14        A.   Ms. Korner, in the middle of my career, I lost half of one of my

15     fingers, and then, during the remainder of my career, it made it

16     difficult for me to use my right hand for writing.  All my speeches,

17     public speeches, speeches on television, all my lectures I did

18     ex cathedra.  I was well known in the public as an officer with this

19     practice.  I never had a single piece of paper in front of me at the

20     time, and even now I have trouble dealing with the papers.

21        Q.   General, is that -- your explanation is that you can't write.  So

22     do I understand that you actually didn't type this report?

23        A.   No.  I can use computer.  I can type on a computer.

24        Q.   But you can't write with --

25        A.   I can write, but I hate it.  I have difficulties in writing, and

Page 23839

 1     I have no need to write.

 2        Q.   But rather than trying to remember what Mr. Krgovic was telling

 3     you, wouldn't it have been better to have taken, even if it was a bit of

 4     trouble, the time to write it down?

 5        A.   Maybe it would have been a better idea.

 6        Q.   Is there any way of identifying in your report which are the

 7     parts on which you got the answer to your dilemma from Mr. Krgovic, as

 8     you tell us you can't remember what the dilemmas were?

 9        A.   I would have to go through the entire report, in order to find

10     those instance.

11        Q.   Well, I'm going to ask you to do that, General, with the leave of

12     the Court, right now.

13             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, it may be that an adjournment would be

14     required so that the General can sit there and do it.  But I think this

15     is important enough to be dealt with before we go any further because it

16     seems to me that, at the moment, there is a submission that I'm going to

17     be making to Your Honours about this whole report.

18             JUDGE HALL:  I hear your application, Ms. Korner, but is -- can't

19     you move on to another area and then come back to this.

20             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours, no.  Because -- if the answer is I

21     anticipate that the application will be that we're not going any further

22     with this witness.

23                           [Trial Chamber confers]

24             JUDGE HALL:  Yes, Mr. Krgovic.

25             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour --

Page 23840

 1             MS. KORNER:  [Previous translation continues] ... I think -- if

 2     Mr. Krgovic wants to address you on this, then the witness ought to leave

 3     court in any event.

 4             JUDGE HALL:  I --

 5             MS. KORNER:  Rather than hearing what Mr. Krgovic has to say.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Fine.  But before he does that, I have a question to

 7     ask the witness.

 8             General Kovacevic, I don't know whether you understood

 9     Ms. Korner's application but how long would it take you to go through the

10     report to isolate the passages that are of concern to her?

11             THE WITNESS: [Interpretation] Mr. President, it is going to be

12     very difficult for me.  Because those details are, in my opinion, very

13     irrelevant.  Otherwise I would be able to remember all those instances

14     right now.

15             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated] ... wrongly translated.

16     It must be irrelevant.

17             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  On the transcript it says "irrelevant" I heard

18     "relevant".

19             MS. KORNER:  I heard very relevant.  I don't think that is what

20     he said - sorry, Mr. Krgovic.

21        Q.   General, could you repeat your answer again, please.

22        A.   I said to the Presiding Judge that this was going to be very

23     difficult for me to remember the details, the legal details, because they

24     were less important.  If I cannot remember them right now on the spot

25     they must have been less important.

Page 23841

 1        Q.   Well, let's explore a little more.  You say the legal details.

 2     Can you identify what details you're talking about?  Are you talking

 3     about your --

 4             MR. KRGOVIC:  Your Honour, I object on this line of question

 5     because it is completely misleading the evidence.  The witness first said

 6     nothing of this dilemma is part of his report.  And now, Ms. Korner,

 7     trying to push, to mislead the witness.

 8             MS. KORNER:  Can the witness leave court, please.

 9             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.

10             MS. KORNER:  I think he speaks some English so --

11             JUDGE HALL:  General Kovacevic, the usher will escort you from

12     court to the holding area briefly then we will tell you -- we would

13     inform you as to where we go from here.

14                           [The witness stands down]

15             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, this is what I want to

16     say.

17             The witness clearly answered the question posed by Ms. Korner

18     that not a single dilemma was part of the report.  And yet Ms. Korner is

19     pressing onto the witness and asking him to show these particular parts.

20     The witness is unable to remember which parts they are because he says

21     that they're not important.  To exert pressure on the witness to request

22     him to read through the whole report in order to remember those details

23     is really unnecessary because none of the details are in the report.  So

24     Ms. Korner is only confusing the witness with this request.  This is my

25     point.

Page 23842

 1             JUDGE HALL:  I fully understand --

 2             MS. KORNER:  Your Honours --

 3             JUDGE HALL:  I fully understand what you're saying Mr. Krgovic.

 4     But the nature of these proceedings are such that it seems to me that

 5     opposing counsel is right to press this issue, because what we are left

 6     with on the state of the evidence at this point is that the report which

 7     has been put into evidence and which is a part of the case for your

 8     client was, in part, and it may very well be that at the end of the day

 9     you're perfectly correct that such assistance as you gave were totally

10     inconsequential and of no moment in terms of the final work product.  But

11     the -- certainly counsel is entitled to explore the -- to the extent that

12     she can, the -- how -- how much this assistance, to use as vague a term

13     as possible may have influenced the result, and to that extent the

14     witness would have to be allowed some time to go through this and answer

15     it, if he is able to.

16             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated] ... point draw

17     Mr. Krgovic's attention to the exact question and answer I asked.  He --

18     I suppose I ought to go back ... oh, sorry, Your Honours, a little bit

19     further.

20             I asked at line 19 of page 35:

21             [As read] "Did you speak to Mr. Krgovic or any member of the

22     Defence team before you delivered your final version about the contents

23     of your report?

24             "A.  I spoke to Mr. Krgovic on a number of occasions while I was

25     working on the report.

Page 23843

 1             "Q.  Did you tell him what you were going to put into the report?

 2             "A.  Yes.

 3             "Q.  Did you make any changes to what you were going to put into

 4     the report as a result of your conversations with Mr. Krgovic?

 5             "A.  It was more of a consultation.

 6             "Q.  I don't understand what that means.  What do you mean by a

 7     consultation?

 8             "A.  Ms. Korner, I wouldn't bring him a document so he could put

 9     in some corrections.

10             "Q.  No.  But I want to know what you mean by consultations.

11             "A.  Sometimes I had a dilemma."

12             This is the part.

13             "Then I would ask him, he would give me a reply.  I would

14     memorize it.  I will go home."  I think it must be I would go home.  "I

15     would sit behind a computer and I would put it into the report that I was

16     currently working on.

17             "Q.  Give us an example of a dilemma in which Mr. Krgovic gave

18     you the answer.

19             "A.  I can't remember with any precision now.  I'm merely

20     answering your questions and I'm explaining the methods."

21             Then I asked him about the duty to say who had assisted with his

22     report.  Question at 37, line 2:

23             [As read] "Q.  I understand that you did the physical drafting of

24     it on your own but from what you just told us, it contained input from

25     Mr. Krgovic who solved your dilemma.

Page 23844

 1             "A.  More often, or to be more precise.  It was really a

 2     suggestion or I shouldn't say suggestion.  In those cases when I had

 3     small problems in interpretation of certain laws and regulations.

 4             "Q.  I'm sorry.  Do you mean he gave you the interpretation,

 5     General.

 6             "A.  He helped me.  He helped me to resolve a dilemma, legal

 7     dilemmas."

 8             Then, in actual fact -- there was a bit about understanding for

 9     the reader you had to know who had done it.

10             "In actual fact the reality is, isn't it, that it contains parts

11     that you got from Mr. Krgovic who solved your dilemmas; is that right?

12             "There's no such thing in this report.  The dilemmas were only

13     inside our head -- my head."

14             Then going back to the dilemma, he said three or four times.  And

15     then we had this explanation about his hand and then identifying the

16     parts.

17             Now, Your Honour, I may as well deal with this right now while

18     the witness is out of court on why I've asked this.  If, as I anticipate

19     and he has more or less said he can't give, cannot identify the parts

20     that he got from Mr. Krgovic, and Mr. Krgovic cannot give evidence about

21     this matter, it's one of the problems, I suppose, of direct contact

22     between counsel and a witness.  Unless he is going to leave the case and

23     become a witness.

24             The general says he cannot identify either what the actual

25     dilemma was other than it was to do with interpretation or which parts of

Page 23845

 1     the report.

 2             Your Honours, the one thing about an expert report in order - and

 3     it's not, of course, in evidence yet it is merely proposed, awaiting the

 4     result of cross-examination - is that it should be the report and

 5     conclusions of the person giving evidence.  If someone else has assisted

 6     him, then he should make it clear in what areas and in what aspects.  And

 7     Your Honours it would be my application if that is the case, that he is

 8     unable to do this, that in fact that all his evidence and, indeed, his

 9     report are, as it were, null and void, as it were.  And had we known this

10     earlier, if Mr. Krgovic had established that with the witness, how he

11     prepared the report, we probably wouldn't have gone much further.

12             But that would be my application.  But one way or another, in any

13     event, Your Honours may feel it's important that he identify where he was

14     given assistance by Mr. Krgovic.  Particularly in a report and evidence

15     that purports to support in some respects, not all, the Defence case

16     about resubordination and the police.

17             MR. KRGOVIC: [Interpretation] Your Honour, in reply to the

18     request by Ms. Korner, I can only say that the application mentioned

19     should be left for the end of the cross-examination and my additional

20     examination of this witness.  And then, having heard everything from this

21     witness about his methods, she should maybe then proceed.

22             But, however, the gist of my objection is as follows:  Ms. Korner

23     does not have the right to continue the cross-examination of the witness

24     but if she does that, she should do it in a proper manner.  Take, for

25     example, the last paragraph read out.  The one in which the witness

Page 23846

 1     clearly stated that not a single dilemma found its way into the report.

 2             Now, to ask the witness to find the dilemmas in the report after

 3     having received such a reply is improper.  That's the gist of my

 4     objection.  The witness clearly stated that none of the dilemmas are part

 5     of the report.  So he cannot be requested to look for something that

 6     doesn't exist.

 7             That is why I think that Ms. Korner is confusing the witness.

 8     She is requesting him to find something that does not exist in the

 9     report.

10             In any case, in relation to the application by Ms. Korner, I

11     respectfully request the Chamber to decide on the application only after

12     the cross-examination and re-direct examination have been finished.

13             MS. KORNER:  [Microphone not activated] in fact, the witness

14     is -- has given on the face of it what appears to be slightly

15     contradictory answers but the first answer is clear:  He spoke to

16     Mr. Krgovic; he went home; and he put it into his report.

17             Your Honours, my application at the moment that he be given the

18     time to go through that report and see if he can identify any dilemmas

19     that he received assistance on from Mr. Krgovic.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you.

21                           [Trial Chamber confers]

22             JUDGE HALL:  The Chamber will rise and come back with a ruling on

23     this application at noon.

24                           --- Recess taken at 11.43 a.m.

25                           --- On resuming at 12.16 p.m.

Page 23847

 1             JUDGE HALL:  I -- yes, Mr. Zecevic.

 2             MR. ZECEVIC:  [Microphone not activated] I'm terribly sorry to

 3     interrupt you.  I was just wondering over the break, I don't know if the

 4     Trial Chamber feels it's appropriate that -- that the Defence of Stanisic

 5     is also heard on the matter.

 6             JUDGE HALL:  Pardon our oversight, Mr. Zecevic.  By all means.

 7             MS. KORNER:  Well, Your Honour, on what basis?  This is -- it's a

 8     separate case.  This is the witness not for Mr. Stanisic but for

 9     Mr. Zupljanin.

10             JUDGE HALL:  But --

11             MS. KORNER:  What's the locus for Mr. Zecevic to address you on

12     this?

13             JUDGE HALL:  Let me hear what he has to say and remember the

14     Stanisic team did cross-examine this witness.

15             MS. KORNER:  Yes.

16             MR. ZECEVIC:  Precisely, Your Honours.  As a matter of fact, I

17     would like to first explain to Ms. Korner.

18             We cross-examined this witness and therefore we cross-examined

19     the witnesses for the Prosecutor we're entitled to rely on their answers.

20     Not only that, but we can rely on the parts of the expert report even

21     from the OTP witnesses.  That is the connection.

22             Now, Your Honours, the -- we understand that the position so far

23     from -- throughout this trial was that the Trial Chamber will decide on

24     the admissibility of the expert report at the end of the -- of the cross

25     and the re-examination of -- of the expert witness.  It was the practice

Page 23848

 1     that we had since the very beginning.  And the expert witnesses for the

 2     Prosecution, the Stanisic Defence, and I think the -- the situation

 3     should continue and it will be only logical that it does in this case as

 4     well.

 5             From -- as a practical matter, Your Honours, there is -- for

 6     Ms. Korner, there is always a possibility that during the

 7     cross-examination which I'm -- I think she will conduct, that when she

 8     comes to a certain conclusion that she wants to challenge, she can always

 9     ask the witness whether this particular conclusion was raised, for

10     example, with Mr. Krgovic or any other person and whether that was the

11     dilemma that was discussed between them.  And then we would be able, or

12     you, actually, Your Honours would be able to assess the -- the expert

13     report in all -- with the totality of the evidence concerning that.  And

14     that is why we believe that -- we join the submission by Mr. Krgovic,

15     that the decision on the admissibility of this report be -- be taken at

16     the end of the -- of the cross and re-examination of this witness.

17             Thank you very much.

18             JUDGE HALL:  Thank you, Mr. Zecevic, for your assistance.

19             MR. ZECEVIC:  I appreciate it, Your Honours.  Thank you.

20             JUDGE HALL:  Before you, yourself, said it I appreciated that

21     what -- that your -- that you are praying in aid the point that

22     Mr. Krgovic made.

23             Could the usher please escort the witness in.

24             And while the witness is on his way in, Ms. Korner, could you

25     refer to page 38, lines 18 to 22 of the transcript.

Page 23849

 1             MS. KORNER:  Sorry, did Your Honour say 28 to 32.

 2             JUDGE HALL:  [Microphone not activated] 38, lines 18 to 22.

 3             MS. KORNER:  Where he says, I would have to go through the entire

 4     report to find the instances.

 5             JUDGE HALL:  That's the answer.  The question that precedes it.

 6             MS. KORNER:  "Is there any way in identifying in your report

 7     which are the ..." [Overlapping speakers] ...

 8             JUDGE HALL: [Overlapping speakers] ... Yes.

 9             MS. KORNER: [Overlapping speakers] ... yes.

10             JUDGE HALL:  Yes.  The Chamber is going to invite you to put that

11     question again, but let's have the witness return to the stand first.

12                           [The witness takes the stand]

13             MS. KORNER:

14        Q.   General --

15             MS. KORNER:  Oh, I'm sorry.

16             JUDGE HALL:  General Kovacevic, from time to time, in the course

17     of trials, these procedural issues have to be resolved and that is why

18     you were stood down while we heard from counsel on this matter.

19             The course that the Chamber has decided upon is that we will take

20     an early adjournment today and have you continue tomorrow morning at the

21     usual time that we resume, at 9.00, but the -- overnight, the question

22     which counsel would have put to you and which we will now invite her to

23     put again so that you remember it, is something that we would ask you to

24     reflect upon, and then we will, as I said, continue with your answer

25     tomorrow morning.

Page 23850

 1             Could you put the question again, Ms. Korner.

 2             MS. KORNER:

 3        Q.   General, is there any way for you to identify in your report

 4     which are the parts on which you got the answer to your dilemma from

 5     Mr. Krgovic?

 6             And full question was:  As you tell us you can't remember what

 7     the dilemmas were?

 8             JUDGE HALL:  So, as I said, you would think about counsel's

 9     question and we would hear your answer when we resume tomorrow.

10             So unless there is anything else, we take the adjournment to

11     9.00, and I believe we are still in this courtroom tomorrow morning.

12             MS. KORNER:  We think we're back in III, Your Honours, but ...

13             JUDGE HALL:  In Courtroom III.  Thank you.

14                           [The witness stands down]

15                           --- Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 12.24 p.m.,

16                           to be reconvened on Friday, the 9th day of

17                           September, 2011, at 9.00 a.m.